header-logo header-logo

12 July 2007
Issue: 7281 / Categories: Legal News , Property
printer mail-detail

Property complaints top negligence league

News

Errors in residential property and re-mortgages were the most common source of professional negligence claims in the 2005–06 insurance year, according to professional indemnity insurer Zurich Professional.
For the sixth year running, the insurer says, such mistakes were the most frequent, accounting for 35% of all the claims and circumstances notified.
The most common problems were: inadequate investigation of title; failing to identify and deal with all the mortgages and other encumbrances affecting the property, failing to undertake appropriate searches and inquiries or failing to advise on the results; and failing to advise co-purchaser clients on co-ownership options.

Commercial property accounted for 11% of all notifications. Many of the mistakes made in residential property also cropped up, although failing to advise fully, accurately or at all on the terms of leases is also a common error, with solicitors failing to ensure clients understand issues such as rent reviews, the operation of break clauses and the extent of dilapidation liabilities.

Andrew Nickels, risk manager at Zurich, says his firm welcomes the new Solicitors’ Code of Conduct 2007 and particularly rule 5 which makes a commitment to risk management, a professional conduct requirement.
Nickels says: “The new Rule 5 imposes strict requirements on principals in firms to ensure that adequate supervisory systems are in place. Given the basic nature of the errors that give rise to most property related claims and the tendency of some firms to use unqualified people for parts of the process, it is to be hoped that a greater emphasis on supervision will lead to a reduction in claims against conveyancers.”

He says the new rule should hopefully lead to fewer negligence claims.
“If principals accept responsibility for the management of risk and error prevention is embedded in all of the internal systems and controls of every legal practice, then we should see a corresponding reduction in errors that lead to allegations of negligence.”

Errors in litigation made up 22% of all claims and circumstances notified, with most relating to missed time limits: missed limitation periods were the most common problem, followed by failing to effect service of the claim form in time.

Company/commercial claims make up only 4% of all notifications, but, Nickels says, this is often outweighed by the value of the claims that result. Common mistakes included: incorrect drafting of documentation; not checking wording or formulae; solicitors failing to identify their client or failing to identify conflicts of interest; and failing to define the scope and limits of the retainer.

Issue: 7281 / Categories: Legal News , Property
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll